Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

pmodern writes "Wired has this story about Maher "Mike" Hawash a former Intel programmer who is being held by the DOJ for suspected terrorism. Anyone familiar with the Kevin Mitnick saga will not be surprised that he hasn't been charged and has been locked away in solitary. 'For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called "material witness" in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon. The designation allows authorities to hold him indefinitely without charging him with a crime.'" See also a NYT article and the Free Mike Hawash website.

Now, since we dont really know any facts in the case, its quite possible their accusations could be true.

However, this whole holding without disclosure thing is what makes me uneasy. If they do have credibly accusations, they should be disclosed, or at the very least make the fact that he is being held a matter of public record. If they can just come in the middle of the night and take someone from their home with no accusation, or warrant, or justification, what makes them better than any other totalitarian regime?

I know the American way of life is something valuable to protect, but you cant protect it by violating the very rights and freedoms it stands for. IMO, Bush's vision for America is as bad as Saddam's vision of Iraq.

Exactly, secret arrest are counter to everything a free and open society stands for. Secret arrests and detention without charge both erode seriously at the basic foundations of what makes this country work.

Anyway, I don't think any sane person can possible compare Iraq to America. That doesn't mean we don't have some major things to worry about. It's not like the very basis of our society defends itself.

My point was that we could be in a situation much like that of Iraq were it not for the check-and-ballance system that we have. Of course, the executive branch seems be attacking some of these ballances, but this is why that is so important.

The Framers understood that the dominant threat would come from within. That a nation is strong against external threats so long as its government is fully endorsed by its people. That an opressive regime would mean either civil war or occupation by a foreign power. Indeed every government rules with the permission of its people. Just with some of them that permission is more tentative than others.

If we had a runaway executive branch, it would be a small matter of time before we would have a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Saddam as our leader. What keeps this from happening is the tripartite balance that the Constitution sets out. If this happened, however, it would mean problems for US econimically, as well as militarily.

So maybe I was a bit too.... sarcastic in how I made my point, but I think that it is important to realize that an erosion of our judicial system is *the* threat that we face today.

Yes, we have some forms of "torture":
1. We ship them to a torture-friendly country like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, or Pakistan.
2. We conduct our own "Stress and Duress [washingtonpost.com]" techniques.

The Washington Post released a shocking report [washingtonpost.com], but nobody really paid attention during Christmas season.

Now we have the death of 2 afghan prisoners in US custody, ruled a Homicide [washingtonpost.com] from "blunt force trauma"[Beating] by the Army investigators. This is the first kind of fatality in US custody, since the US government officially states it does not "torture" people.

Now that Sheikh Muhammad has been captured,
the newspapers are debating the ethics [washingtonpost.com] over whether it should be legal to torture him for information. Israel's and our official policy is to not torture anyone, even if there's a hidden ticking bomb somewhere. However, this doesn't stop them from getting shipped-- I mean "rendered" to the custody of Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, and Pakistan, who do perform that.

Such efforts were successful in the past; in 1995 an Al Qaeda agent was arrested [washingtontimes.com] in the Phillipenes. They knew he was in on a major operation, but
they didn't know what. So they tortured him the old fashioned way, breaking his ribs and burning his testicles. After two weeks he broke, and revealed the plan to hijack 11 planes. Of course, a poll on AOL's front page voted 70% Yes to using some form of torture. Editorials aren't so rosy either, one says we should kill terrorists and smear them with pig fat so they won't get into heaven somehow.

I seem to remember the philosopher Nietzche who said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster." That means we shouldn't sink to their level or worse. Who would be the barbarian then? We seem to be ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" law, even though it's better to let ten guilty men walk free than let one innocent one suffer. The US will never officially condone any cruel or unusual punishment, but Israel taught them that sleep deprivation, chaining in uncomfortable positions, harsh lights, and interrogation by women will usually yield results.

May I remind you that Saddam tortures children [bbc.co.uk] in front of their fathers to make them confess. That's horrible. However, I'm a bit worried about Sheikh Muhammad's two young sons, 9 and 7, being arrested by the CIA and flown to America [telegraph.co.uk] to help pressure their father to confess. Of course, the US won't deny that the man himself is being subject to "Stress and duress" [telegraph.co.uk] right now. "Let's just say we are not averse to a little smacky face. After all, if you don't violate a prisoner's human rights some of the time then you aren't doing your job?" said a CIA officer, admitting they honed their interrogation techniques since Vietnam.

They have made accusations, that is why the person was taken. The difference is they have not made publicly disclosed accusations.

Thats the problem: if they have a reason for taking this person, is it valid? Is it justified? Just taking somebody because they went to high school with a suspected terrorist is hardly justified. But if you went on 'vacation' to Afghanistan three years ago with this person, that could be justified.

But since they are giving out no information, or even saying if this person is being held, that becomes a serious issue.

And the important part there is that he hasn't been questioned by anybody, either.

All this bull is just the FBI and the CIA shitting their pants over the possibility that somebody will figure out how incompetent they are, so they go nuts and arrest everybody wearing pants because Osama sometimes wears pants.

I hate to tell you guys, but your country has become a police state, not a real real bad people disapeared left right and centre one, not yet but if due proccess can be subverted then a police state it is. I'm an Aussie I could Just say only in America, and assume that it doesn't affect me, but if one western nation can go this way how safe are the rest of us. This has to be stopped guys, for the sake of the people of the US, and for the sake of us all.

Elections don't work anymore. Mass media and education are controlled largely by the party. The private militia, which is the basis for our country's internal security is nonexistant. Law enforcement at all levels tends to be pro-gov and anti-citizen. The UN is a joke. We're on a runaway freight train and people think it's an amusement park ride.

It's time for the people of this country to wake up and demand that the U.S. administration reconcile their actions with what is written in the constitution. These bastards are traitors.

I don't know how it will all turn out. The only thing I can say for sure is that dubya has made an anti-republican out of me.

Right. You think Bush somehow enacted the legal loopholes that allow the government to keep someone like this. News for ya: Bush doens't make the laws. He signs them but your representatives make them. And probably the laws that allow them to do it were around long before bush. People like you make me laugh. Anything any government agency does is somehow blamed on Bush. Feh.

Congress, you may recall, was panicked by envelopes of anthrax and facing threats of political reprisal, passed the PATRIOT Act overwhelmingly over a year ago, with two copies of the 342-page act printed for the perusal of 535 members. Most who voted for it had no idea the extent of the new, extra-judicial wiretap powers granted to law-enforcement in the bill, secret searches of homes and businesses, or the virtually all-encompassing definition of "terrorism, or the amount of data-sharing license given to federal, and even state and local agencies.

Not to mention that this major piece of legislation was somehow drafted in only 33 days from the instigating incident (9/11) and passing in congress (10/25). Good thing all those congress critters were running so scared from the anthrax. Someone might have had an independent thought otherwise.

"Oh, BTW, this is the same Ashcroft that lost an election to a dead man and Bush appointed."

Indeed, he was appointed at the behest of the ACU [conservative.org] (American Conservative Union), which later issued a statement following the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act (since when is it patriotic to shred the US Constitution?) stating that many of their constituents regretted its support [conservative.org] for his appointment. Aside from that, all reports indicate that even the rest of the Bush Administration doesn't like Ashcroft. A part of me thinks that he might not be part of the package if Bush wins re-election.

Oddly enough though, John Ashcroft has managed to unite the left and the right. Groups such as the ACLU and the ACU (at completely different ends of the political spectrum) are actually issuing joint press releases stating their belief that he is the single greatest threat to American liberty right now.

Actually, John Ashcroft was the primary author of the USA PATRIOT act, it passed congress, most representatives not bothering to read it...

According to Peter DeFazio (Representative from Oregon), the vast majority of the Congress wasn't even allowed to read it prior to the vote. DeFazio had to demand a copy in so he would know what was in it before the "debate".

I don't have a reference for the interview in which he said this - it was on the radio. However, here's a
link [registerguard.com] to an article describing his stance on the bill.

he isn't fighting any of this stuff. It may not be his fault, but it's his responsibility

And as head of the aforementioned executive branch it is exactly his job to enforce/operate within those laws enacted by the legislative branch and not contested by the judicial branch. So any problems with the laws really lie with the legislature. If there are bad loopholes then the legislature needs to amend them. It is not up to the executive branch to do that kind of thing at all. That's why the police arrest bums for digging in dumpsters for cans on the charge of collecting garbage without a license and why the judge throws out the case.

That means he's in charge of the Justice Department, which is doing bad things both in acting on existing laws in bad ways (Padilla and others) and in proposing bad laws (Patriot Act and sequel).

And as head of the aforementioned executive branch it is exactly his job to enforce/operate within those laws enacted by the legislative branch and not contested by the judicial branch. So any problems with the laws really lie with the legislature. If there are bad loopholes then the legislature needs to amend them. It is not up to the executive branch to do that kind of thing at all. That's why the police arrest bums for digging in dumpsters for cans on the charge of collecting garbage without a license and why the judge throws out the case.

The President has a very large role in making and passing laws. Congress very often acts on recommendation from the President or from the Executive Branch (like the Justice Department) when deciding what to make into law. And failing that, the President has veto powers, but you didn't see Bush vetoing the steaming pile known as Patriot.

Your statements about the responsibilities of the executive branch are right except when it comes to the President. He has a unique role in that branch that involves his heavily in lawmaking as well.

It's absolutely true that we should be after Congress for this stuff too, but Bush is certainly a legitimate target.

Even if he's not, I don't care how much proof or evidence they have, secret evidence and secret tribunals are an abomination of the justice system and have no place in a free society. There is NO justification whatsoever. That's not liberal bias, that's basic democratic thinking.

Furthermore, denying non-citizens the rights of citizens is the height of hypocrisy - it shows that we don't really believe in the rights espoused in our Constitution, but simply obey them.

One more time, just to be clear - it doesnn't matter what information they do or do not have. I don't presume to guess. The step they took is unjustifiable in and of itself.

Yaknow, I'm not a big fan of Bush, but there's a world of difference here. Bush's vision for America doesn't include purges, torture, gassing of civilians who oppose his rule, widespread suppression of dissent.

Well, not as far as you may think. In Patriot 2 they want the power to strip someone of their citizenship based on accusations, so they don't have the usual constitutional protections. This makes purges really easy. As to torture, what about the two who have died in interrogation in Guantanamo, the ones who haven't even been charged yet. As to gassing civilians, it was the gassing of a Kurdish village full of Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war. Deplorable and agains the Geneva Convention, but not to suppress dissent. The current administration may not be doing any of those nasty things, but they are working very hard to remove the safeguards that keep them from doing them currently.

So, my perspective is that we have a chance to stop a police state from forming, but only if people stop saying crap like "well, it could be worse, look at those guys." Those guys got that bad because nobody stopped it up front.

This is a repost from above. Some AC posted it and it was immediately modded offtopic. Thought people should see it in context.

It's the fall of 1983. Michael Jackson is riding high with Thriller; Ronald Reagan is obsessed with a red menace in the jungles of Central America; humiliated U.S. troops have just slouched out of Beirut following a series of suicide bombings, and America's newest nemesis, the Ayatollah Khomeini is locked in a vicious conflict with America's soon-to-be ally, the secular 'socialist' dictator Saddam Hussein. The fight is vicious indeed. In November 1983 U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz receives an intelligence report describing how Hussein's troops are resorting to "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" against the Iranians. A month later, Ronald Reagan dispatches a special envoy to Baghdad on a secret mission. The identity of the envoy is intriguing. He's not a diplomat or a member of Reagan's cabinet - he's a private citizen, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.On Dec. 20, the envoy meets with Saddam Hussein. But he is not there to lecture the dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction or the fine print of the Geneva Conventions. He is there to talk business under orders from high. Reagan had just signed a secret order instructing his charges to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war.The envoy informs the Iraqi leader that Washington is ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a recently declassified State Department report of the conversation, and that Washington would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." Iraqi leaders later describe themselves as "extremely pleased" with the visit.The envoy was Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Searle.The meeting is widely considered to be the trigger that ushered in a new warming of U.S.-Iraq relations, which allowed the shipment of dual-use munitions, chemical and biological agents and other dubious technology transfers. But for years what exactly was said between Rumsfeld and Hussein in that now infamous meeting (see pic) has been shrouded in secrecy.No one knew, until last week.In a new investigative report from the Institute for Policy Studies entitled Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured U.S. Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein released last week, researchers Jim Vallette, Steve Kretzmann, and Daphne Wysham expose the real reason Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Baghdad: Hewas sent by Reagan himself to pressure Saddam Hussein to approve a highly lucrative oil pipeline project from Iraq to Jordan.Examining recently released government and corporate sources, the researchers document for the first time how a close-knit group of high-ranking U.S. officials (including Sec. of State Shultz and Attorney General Edwin Meese) worked in secrecy for two years attempting to secure a billion dollar pipeline scheme for the Bechtel corporation. The Bush/Cheney administration now eyes Bechtel as a primary contractor for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure.Bechtel's pipeline would have carried a million barrels of Iraqi crude oil a day through Jordan to the Red Sea port of Aqaba."The men who courted Saddam while he gassed Iranians are now waging war against him, ostensibly because he holds these same weapons of mass destruction" said Jim Vallette, lead author of the report. "They now deny that oil has anything to do with the conflict. Yet during the Reagan Administration, and in the years leading up to the present conflict, these men shaped and implemented a strategy that has everything to do with securing Iraqi oil exports. All of this documentation suggests that Reagan Administration officials bent many rules to convince Saddam Hussein to open up a pipeline of central interest to the U.S., from Iraq to Jordan."What happened to the Aqaba deal? What trade-offs were made? Who were the players? What impact did it have on current U.S. policy?

Bush's vision for America doesn't include purges, torture, gassing of civilians who oppose his rule, widespread suppression of dissent.

Well, lets see. For one thing, thousands of Arab-Americans and people from other Islamic countries have been locked up without charges

Torturing the camp X-ray people has been brought up, and they already doing things to 'compel' people to testify without causing pain (like keeping them awake, spraying them with water)

Rumsfeild is trying to rewrite the rules of engagement to allow the use of riot-control gasses in battle, violating the same chemical weapons ban that we're supposedly in Iraq to prevent. Certainly some civilians will be hit. Also, such chemicals are widely used against civilians during protests.

And widespread suppression of dissent? That seems to be happening on it's own.

Bush isn't at the same level as saddam, but most of the things you mentioned are happening to some extent.

Yaknow, I'm not a big fan of Bush, but there's a world of difference here. Bush's vision for America doesn't include purges, torture, gassing of civilians who oppose his rule, widespread suppression of dissent.

Bush sucks, but let's have a sense of perspective, eh?

Now I realize that, at the moment, things are as bad as all that. However, being a longtime politician, Bush realized the legal issue refered to as a "Slippery Slope": its a situation in which things can get steadily, legally, worse, by justifying the decline on a previous (and poorly considered) precident.

Today they come for the supposed terrorists. Tomorrow they come for the foreigners. Then they come for the political dissidents. Then, they come for you.

1. The government has not accused him of a crime, he is being held as a material witness.

2. While I don't know this guy directly, I did work at Intel and I did know of this guys work. And I *do* know some of his close friends, as in members of his wedding party, very well. We are shocked.

This whole think stinks. He is a citizen. If they came for him, they can come for you or me. If they terrorized his wife and children, they can do it to yours and mine. Mike needs due process, he is not getting it.

As far as I can tell, he made good-faith donations to the "wrong" charity. Now because he wanted to support good works in poor countries, he is held in solitary confinement, without charge.

While we do not know the facts behind any alleged criminal activities that led to his detention, one fact that is abundantly clear, Mike is *not* getting due process. He is not getting the kind of treatment that any citizen of the US of A has a right to expect and demand.

The last time I served on a jury, the defendant was a 2-time convicted felon up on child rape charges. That citizen got due process, the respect of the court, and an opportunity to defend himself. It sickens me to compare that case with the Mike Hawash case.

He doesn't stand for an election against political opponents. He wins his election by 100% to 0% and has his opponents and their entire families tortured and murdered.

And Bush rigged an election in ONE state. Big things start small. Rig a national election by changing it in one state, next election you can rig two states, then four, and within twenty years you have control of the entire political apparatus.

I see no evidence that this is Bush's vision for America.

So you think that Bush's approval of taking anyone, even US citizens (like Joseph Padilla of Cicero, IL), without a formal disclosure of charges (or even an acknowledgement that he is being held), is any different? Personally, the only difference between what Saddam and Bush are doing is how the detainee is treated; but both are losing their liberty, and any of their protections (and even STATUS) under our laws.

Institutionalize this bastardization of our liberties, and see how fast we descend into torturing and mistreating captives. Hell, we already have abuses with legitimate criminals being abused. Just think what would happen to people who are legal non-entities....

I'm not one of those who thinks that the secret arrest of someone suspected of plotting mass murder of civilians is "just as bad" as the murder of the entire familiy of someone suspected of wanting a different president.

But its just a shade of difference. Who decides if a person will be taken? What balances on this power are in place? What discression is being used? How do we know people are being taken legitimately?

Even if it isnt being abused right now, it can (and likely will) eventually be abused by somebody, for some reason, and it will only get worse. Q uis custodiet ipsos custodes [antville.org]? Read the article and tell me, given human nature, if you think people can be trusted with that kind of power will never abuse it.

For this very reason I have always thought it more appropriate that people abusing positions of power should be dealt with MORE harshly, rather than less (as we do in this country). For example, a politician taking a bribe is not only accepting a bribe, but betraying the public trust. A policeman murdering a person is not just commiting murder, but betraying the public trust.

But I have little patience for people who short-circuit reasoned debate by resorting to foolish comparisons of Bush and Saddam that could just as easily prove that a surgeon is just as bad as Jack the Ripper, or being exposed to secondhand smoke is essentially what Hitler did to the Jews, or that one equals a million.

So tell me, what is the difference between wronging one person, and wronging hundreds? If I murder one person, and that carries a life sentence, does that mean anything over and above that is the "bonus round"? And remember, Hitler started small. It began with an unsuccessful coupe (or in Saddam and Bush's case, a successful one). The there was the conquest of a small country (the Rhineland for Hitler, Kuwait for Saddam). If Saddam went unchecked, he would have swept thru the Middle East just like Hitler swept thru Europe.

Their regimes were based on intollerance, Hitler's of Pro-Arayan, Saddam's supposed pro-Muslim (but meanwhile very intollerant of anything but Sunni), and Bush's of rabidly Pro-NeoConservative. To tell you the truth, I dont think any of them really bought into the rhetoric they were spouting, but only using it as their vehicle to power: the important thing was that others were buying into their rhetoric, and were willing to blindly support them. Were any of them directly responsible for all of the abuses done under their regime? No, IMO, but that hardly excuses them. If you nudge a boulder down a hill, that hardly excuses you when it runs through a house and kills a family eating dinner. If you cant calculate the possible effects of your actions, you should be at the helm. Frank Herbert wrote that abolute power doesnt corrupt, it attracts corruptable people: this is my point, and this is the danger.

not that your ignorant comment is deserving of any acknowlegement, but here goes.
If they had listened to the FBI agent that reported Atta and his buddies getting flight training lessons and compiled a case and arrested them, and put them on trial for consipracy to commit mass murder, that would have been wonderful. If they had rounded them up for being brown and jailed them without charges or access to council, then yes I would have been very angy.
I guess that makes me guilty of sedition, and subject to being held without charges. I'm just a nasty Thought Criminal anyway.

Same problem if Gore was in office. The reason that anything fishy could have happened is that the election was ridiculously close. The only way an election could be that close and controversial is if the American People didn't like either candidate.

To put it another way, "King Al" wouldn't have been elected either. That's why a decision by the gov't had to be made, one or the other. To be honest, I think the voting system needs a "none of the above" vote. That would have made the 2000 election rather interesting.

I imagine that the next election will break down 50/50 along party lines, just as the 2000 elections did. I've noticed that many, many polls on CNN lately have been doing that, which (perhaps irrationally) leads me to believe that the trend will affect the next election as well. It's worrisome enough to make a libertarian like me want to vote democrat the next time around.

> Uhm. Not wanting to be picky, but Americans voted the current administration in power

This is false. Even if the votes had favored Bush (they didn't), the SC decision was to ignore the vote based on the fact that the press had already declared Bush the winner. Doing otherwise, they argued in an incredible example of NewSpeak, would cast doubt on the election results. Doubt is certainty!

So, you would have favored simply recounting and recounting until the vote turned out how you like it?

There are RULES to an election -- including deadlines and not trying to have the counters use ESP to guess what people intended.

As a Florida resident (at that time), and Libertarian who voted for neither Gore nor Bush, I've had enough of ignorant people bitching about the election.

1. The "Butterfly Ballot" was chosen by an experienced DEMOCRAT; used successfully, without incident, in several other areas of the country; was published beforehand in the local newspaper; passed a review of BOTH parties without challenge.

2. "Hanging Chads" were the best. Finally, Florida counties will get rid of the antiquated systems and get something a bit less prone to human error and manipulation. Voting is't tough, and there were people there to assist. Multiple rehandlings of paper punch ballots damage the ballots, skewing the actual vote. More recounts would have meat more UNCOUNTED votes as the ballots would have been damaged beyond proper use.

3. "More People Voted For Gore". Actually, I think the majority of Americans DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL! For those that DID vote, this ISN'T A PURE DEMOCRACY aka MOB RULE. This is a Republic, and the electoral system is much harder to manipulate than pure majority vote. It isn't the first time it happened, and it won't be the last time that a President was elected with less than a majority.

GET OVER IT! Both major political parties (Democrats & Republicans) are lying, sniviling, cheating, vote-whoring, ballot-stuffing scum.

Don't like it? Look at the maps where the votes were close (Oregon, Iowa, Florida, etc.) and organize voter education, registration and participation there. There IS another election coming up...

As a Canadian it looks to me like the US is ALREADY a police state. Homeland security? Citizens of Arab descent have to register? Next thing you know, Homeland security is dressed in brown, and the Arabs all have to wear a red moon on their sleeves.

I even heard a story about an older couple that got into trouble because while their house is in Canada, the only road leading to it crosses into US territory by a few inches. INCHES. So they've got special permission to use the road, but if they need a plumber, he needs to go to a border crossing before he can drive down that road, then he has to go back to the border crossing to get 'back' into Canada. Xenophobic? I think they're already there, too.

(By 'they', I in no way mean 'American People'. The people patrolling your borders and making your laws are starting to go a little crazy, and I don't think that's anything that you expected.)

he will not receive the massive support and protest that mitnick received, simply because of his name. Kevin = American, where as Maher = sounds like something from one of those countries we are at war with. Kinda sad, really.

he will not receive the massive support and protest that mitnick received, simply because of his name. Kevin = American, where as Maher = sounds like something from one of those countries we are at war with. Kinda sad, really.

Whereas I, on the other hand, think that a guy with a wife and children is going to receive more support than a creepy dork who may or may not have been able to start WWIII.

Also, Keven was part of the "Hacker Community." Maher was a suit at Intel. Still, I'd hope more civil liberties groups would take notice, as this is obviously yet another violation of human rights. I'd rather if governments didn't get away with this sort of thing on a regular basis. Either charge him with something and give him his normal legal rights, or stop lying to the people and change the name to the Tyrannical States of America.

I don't think any of us were behind Kevin because he was an American per se. I was behind Kevin because he was being treated unfairly in a way that I could see myself being treated one day.

This guy is even easier to identify with because there isn't even any presented evidence of his (lack of) guilt. He might well be Bin Laden's mole inside Intel, making 387 co-processors for embedded systems that round wrong to thwart US technology, but we'd never know, because we're not allowed to know.

American or not. Native or not. He's human and I accept him as a fellow citizen.

Solidarity, tolerance, freedom, justice and peace... these are the things I want to have associated with America in the hearts and minds of all people.

But that's not easy when half of us want homeland security, revenge and money. Those desires paint a very different picture of America than what most of us think of when we see that red, white and blue flag blowing in the wind.

What do you associate with America and the flag today after all we've been through?

He gave a large amount of money to a legiteamite charity that is fighting its listing as a terrorist organization. The vevidence used to freeze its assets is shaky at best, and would never survive a judicial review, so the DOJ has been dragging its feet, anbd trying to force through legislation that totally suspends any rights to Habeus Corpus that we have left.

As for 9-11, you are obviously of the "Oh my God! Heathen Muslims are trying to kill America because they hate Freedom" clique.

PORTLAND, Ore., April 3 -- For the last two weeks, Maher Hawash, a 38-year-old software engineer and American citizen who was from the West Bank and grew up in Kuwait, has been held in a federal prison here, though he has not been charged with a crime or brought before a judge.

Relatives and friends of Mr. Hawash, who works for the Intel Corporation and is married to a native Oregonian, say he has no idea why he was arrested by a federal terrorism task force when he arrived for work at the Intel parking lot in Hillsboro, a Portland suburb. The family home was raided at dawn on the same day by nearly a dozen armed police officers, who woke Mrs. Hawash and the family's three children, friends said.

Mr. Hawash, who is known as Mike, has yet to be interrogated and is being kept in solitary confinement, his supporters say.

Federal officials will not comment on Mr. Hawash, though they have been pressed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and by a group of supporters led by a former Intel vice president, for basic information about why he is being detained.

In a statement after his arrest, the F.B.I. said he was being held as a material witness in an "ongoing investigation" by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Federal search warrants in the case are sealed.

The case has drawn the attention of civil liberties groups nationwide, who say Mr. Hawash's case is an example of how the Bush administration is holding a handful of American citizens without offering them normal legal protection.

Although at least two American citizens are being held without normal legal rights as "enemy combatants," Mr. Hawash has not been categorized as such. As a material witness, he is being held to compel testimony. But supporters say he has not been told anything about what the government may want from him.

"Our friend has fallen into some kind of `Alice in Wonderland' meets Franz Kafka," said Steven McGeady, the former Intel executive, who started a legal defense fund and a Web site for Mr. Hawash.

"You hear about this happening in other countries and to immigrants and then to American citizens," Mr. McGeady went on. "And finally you hear about it happening to someone you know. It's scary."

Mr. Hawash's family thought at first that his arrest was connected to two donations he made three years ago to an Islamic charity, Global Relief Foundation, whose assets were frozen last year when federal authorities said it was linked to terrorism. But now relatives say the contributions may not be related to his arrest, and he may be asked to testify about six people charged here last year with aiding terrorism.

Asked about the charitable donations -- which totaled a little more than $10,000 -- Mr. Hawash told the local newspaper, The Oregonian, in November: "We believed that they are doing good work. It's a well-known organization."

Civil liberties groups say material witness statutes are being abused by the Bush administration to hold people like Mr. Hawash indefinitely. "The government doesn't have and should not have the power to arrest and detain someone without charging them," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants Rights Project. "If this kind of thing is permitted, then any United States citizen can be swept off the street and locked up without being charged."

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the courts have made conflicting rulings on the legality of holding material witnesses without charging them. A federal judge in Manhattan, Shira A. Scheindlin, said such detentions were "an illegitimate use of the statute," but another ruling in the same court, by Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, said detaining witnesses to compel testimony was a legitimate investigative tool.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has defended the tactic, saying it is "vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks."

The Justice Department has not said how many Americans have been held without charges in terro

The case has drawn the attention of civil liberties groups nationwide, who say Mr. Hawash's case is an example of how the Bush administration is holding a handful of American citizens without offering them normal legal protection.

The fact that this can happen at all is a frightening commentary on the current state of the U.S. federal government.

There has been no proof that the organization he donated to is or supports a terrorist organization, however. The government is just saying so and hasn't actually proven it. Certainly the organization involved is denying it -- what if they're right?

And besides which, we don't know that that is why the government just grabbed him. They aren't saying anything about that either.

So yeah -- I'd say that it is kafkaesque. The government is basically kidnapping people without alleging any reason for doing so, and even if they did allege such a reason, without proving it.

If you think that's just, then what's to stop them from kidnapping you? They might claim that you gave money to terrorists. Even if it isn't true, if you have no opportunity to challenge that aren't you still up shit creek without a paddle?

What will be interesting is the media coverage. I mean, most people in the US are probably not aware that such a thing is possible and might, just *might* be a bit angered about this kind of StaSi-type of behaviour. Or maybe they'll just think "wow, great! Got another one of those terrorist bastards!"I think one should seriously consider the option of moving to Russia...

Ashcroft is one of the big proponents of using "material witness" detentions as a way of avoiding habeus corpus. It's not being mentioned in the press because the press would rather not digify that sort of procedural bullshit. They've called it what it is: Detention without due process or habeus corpus. The press have a duty to try to be objective, but that doesn't mean they have to be gullible.
--G

Warblogging.com [warblogging.com] has been covering Hawash's story, as well as the Total Information Awareness story for a good while now. "George Paine" is a well-informed writer and his links are usually pretty good.

this story breaks the surface of the mainstream media to become a potential source of embarrassment about how the Land of the Free and the Home of Brave is treating detainess, then Plan B will be put into effect.

Sound familiar to anyone else? Oh yeah, there was the case of Jose Padilla [bbc.co.uk], an american citizen who was being held as a 'material witness' to some unknown crime, prevented from seeing his lawyer (violating the write of habeas corpus)transferred to a military brig outside Charleston, SC as an 'enemy combatant' and has yet to be charged with a crime.

" Abdullah al-Muhajir is being held in relation to having possibly planned a bombing attack. Glad i could help you."

His name is Padilla; read the court documents. Using his Islamic aka doesn't make him any more guilty, nor any less deserving of his rights as an American citizen. I suspect that the reason you like using his aka is because it makes you feel better about the government's ridiculously illegal attitude about the whole thing.

Secondly, all suspects are being held in relation to having possibly commited or attempting to commit a crime; hence the title "suspect", from the word: suspected. Being suspected of a crime is in no way an indication of guilt; in fact, it is just the opposite. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers.

Thirdly, Senators on the Senate Intelligence Commitee who have seen the sealed report detailed the "evidence" against Mr Padilla have commented publicly that the evidence is very weak. As one put it, (paraphrasing) 'I'm all for locking up the bad guys, but you've got to have evidence.'

Fouthly, unlike John Ashcroft's doomsday-sounding press counference, which talked of stopping a terrorist plot in progress, the Bush administration, through the deputy secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said that there was no bomb, there was no target, there was no plan outside of some "loose talk". Jose Padilla is accused of travelling to foreign countries (oh no, not that), possibly meeting with some Al Qaeda opperatives (good Lord, not that freedom of association thing again), and possibly doing some research online about so-called "dirty bombs". Hell, I looked online for information about dirty bombs after seeing this horrifying announcement mentioning radiation, mass death, and mass destruction. What did I find? That probably every death caused by a "dirty bomb" would be caused by the explosion; not radiation exposure. Experts commenting on the prospect of a dirty bomb's radiological effects said basically that those exposed to the radiation of a dirty bomb would have more to fear from smoking than they would from the radiation. In other words, the radiation would be at such low doses as to cause little more than minor radiation poisoning.

"For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called "material witness" in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon. The designation allows authorities to hold him indefinitely without charging him with a crime."

With tools like that, who needs dictatorships? Just lockup anyone likely to compete about power of state. No chance of getting caught since everything is stamped "top secret". You simply cannot lay power like that in the hands of people. No matter what it WILL be abused!

The US is imploding far faster than anyone would imagine. Remember how Rome fell and why for a cluebat.

I agree that the use of the term 'disappeared' as a verbis no longer appropriate in the Hawass case. However, thereare roughly 1200 people who have in fact 'disappeared' fromthe U.S. who are believed to have been removed by INS or DOJin the past year and a half.

The U.S. has reserved and excercised the assumed right todesignate any individual, whether a citizen or non-citizen,as a terrorist, and to kill them. The U.S. has also reservedthe right to designate any person, citizen or non-citizen,domestically or abroad, as an enemy combatant, regardlessof whether or not they were engaged in active combat, andto detain them indefinitely without access to legalcounsel.

These powers are reserved to the office of an unelectedofficial who has repeatedly expressed a preference fordictatorship over democracy, and has waged war againstnon-beligerent nations on false pretexts, without adeclaration of war by the Congress, as required by thefounding laws of the United States. This act is definedas a Crime against Peace, by the Principles of the NurembergTribunal, VI(a)i. When the Nazi government of Germany didthis, those responsible were hung by the neck until dead.

Your objection is noted. But let's be clear: it's a trivial difference between seizing someone and placing them in an unknown facility, and seizing someone and holding them incommunicado in a known facility.

So, the issue might be that he is being detained without due process or habeas corpus rights

It rolls off the tongue so smoothly, doesn't it? No due process, habeas corpus... no big deal.

please don't confuse the issue and say the US government "disappeared" him.

It's not confusing at all; the difference is trivial. At this point, all the U.S. has going for it is that Mr. Hawash will not be killed by his captors. Give it 5 more years, though, and maybe we'll be rapidly closing in on 1984's Oceania.

It seems to me that the only reason why slashdot would post this story is the fact that he's an Intel employee. If he weren't an engineer and worked at Wal-Mart, the story would be ignored. Makes you wonder just how many 'detainees' there are in the states, not counting Guantanamo, of course.;-)

Just remember what it was like 3 years ago: Economy was good, we had jobs, the President was brokering peace between Israel and Palestine, and our biggest worry was that the President had consentual sex with his adult intern. Oh my.

Not that I think that./ is an objective news site, but since this has absolutely nothing to do with technology or online rights, he did not "disappear".

They know where he is. A lawyer has contact with him. They're not going to burn his body and later deny he was ever taken into custody.

Is it a good situation? No, I think it should be ruled unconstitutional, its following the letter instead of the spirit of the material witness law.

When you use terms like "disappeared" to describe it, though, not only do you sound like a wacky radical, but you also insult the people in oppressive countries who actually have been killed/locked away for life without trials or explainations.

More or less what I was going to post, but you beat me to it:). What happened to this individual, while unfortunate and in my opinion indefensible, is nowhere near what happens to those "disappeared" under totalitarian regimes. Say what you want, but I seriously doubt he's going to be tortured, killed, and buried in an unmarked mass grave. When people with extreme political views (and this applies to the right, the left, and everyone in between) exaggerate their claims in this manner they completely destroy their credibility, at least with those of us who have an IQ higher than our shoe size and are actually capable of some critical thought.

I'm not terribly comfortable with the way the government is handling this, but I think we need to acknowledge that we are fighting a new type of war (with a group of violent extremists rather than a readily identifiable nation-state) and that some new rules will be necessary. There's no way in hell that putting all of the "enemy combatants" (Padilla) and the "material witnesses" (like the gentleman mentioned in this article - and I think that holding people like this as "material witnesses" is an egregious perversion of the intent of that rule) through the criminal justice system will work. My initial thoughts (and IANAL) regarding American citizens that are caught up in these situations are as follows:

The government must provide sufficient evidence to hold the suspect. If the information cannot be made public (and I absolutely believe there will be many situations where this will legitimately be the case), then there should be a special grand jury that is cleared to view the secret information and decide if the government has sufficient evidence to hold the suspect. The whole "we're the government and we think this person is bad and you'll just have to trust us" is absolutely unacceptable. A federal grand jury comprised of citizens with Top Secret clearance would not be the easiest thing to convene, but far from impossible and a small price to pay for helping to uphold our nation's ideas of justice.

The government must be liable and accountable for any damages caused by false arrests and detentions. They must publicly acknowledge the mistake and clear the person's name, and should be penalized in a manner that creates a significant disincentive for them to arrest people without being very, very sure of what they are doing.

I'm sure that people with far more legal wisdom than I possess can refine these ideas further, but they're a start.

First they came for the Jewsand I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew.Then they came for the Communistsand I did not speak outbecause I was not a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionistsand I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for meand there was no one leftto speak out for me.

The loophole that the framers of the statutes knew about fully, and no one else paid attention to is that supposedly rigorous limitation of powers are based solely on a definition that is set by the authorities.

Law enforcement is limited in what they can do with or to you *until* they define you as a terrorist. Then they have broad leeway.

This same creep happened in the RICO statues. They were passed specifically to go after a very traditional definition of "organized crime." The problem became law enforcement's increasing willingness to broaden the definition of "organized crime" to what used to be called merely conspiracy.

So it's not necessarily the powers that are given to law enforcement, but the flimsy, overly broad cicumstances under which they can use them that we build into the statues.

Some claim that "slippery slope" arguments are all a logical fallacy. But surely there is a place at which the slope becomes so steep we can deem it slippery enough that we shouldn't tolerate it any more. I am all for protecting civilians and ensuring domestic security, but do we have to deny people access to lawyers and due process to do that? I thought that our forefathers agreed a long time ago that due process was a good concession, a middle ground between the "ultra-secure", but extremely-unfree police state and Wild West anarchy.

I am not saying that I am strictly opposed to "ethnic profiling" - the fact is that a certain subset of people are more likely to commit large scale terrorist acts on US soil, and if there is suspicion, we should certainly act on that suspicion. But suspicion alone should never give the government the right to detain somebody who is a legal resident or citizen in violation of due process protections. We should speak out loudly, clearly, and rationally against this to our representatives. I don't want to speak specifically about this case, because we just don't know enough about the details, but the general principles of justice and basic civil rights must be upheld.

Of similar ethnicities. It's sad that we only care when it happens to someone who has powerful (or at least well connected) friends in the tech industry.

Not that I'm bitching that it's on here, but it's important to keep in mind that this is not an isolated incident.

After 9/11 there was a guy imprisoned for several weeks because he was arab and booked a flight on 9/11... several hours before the attack (i.e. late sunday night). After the three weeks the FBI asked him a few questions, and then let him go.

The comparisons with mintnik are somewhat apt, but at least he was charged with an actual crime, and guilty of it too. He may not have had a bail hearning, but he did appear before a judge.

What scares me most about this whole ordeal is no one has any mechanism through the legal system to get him out. Not only is the government tight-lipped about why they have him, when they showed up in force to take him, they claim they have a warrant, which is sealed. There's not even any attempt at demonstrating legitimacy. This means that without some identified party legitimately responsible for the warrant, there can be no satisfaction it is even valid.

A sign I recently saw at JFK airport after returning from a trip abroad:

Welcome to the United Police States of Amerika

All fruits, vegetables, meat products, and inalienable rights must be declared to the Customers officer. In order to gain adminttance to the United Police States of Amerika, these products must be surrendered. Failure to comply will result in civil or criminal action.

Yaser Hamdi [cnn.com] and Jose Padilla [chargepadilla.org] have been locked up now for around a year(Over a year in Hamdi's case I think). Both have been refused access to a lawyer and neither have had charges filed against them. These are american citizens. This could happen to you. This could happen to somebody you know.

Our own government is locking people up without due process or just killing them [mit.edu] to save the hassle. Something really has to be done. Write your congressmen, join the ACLU [aclu.org](I did yesterday), participate in protests even if it feels stupid at first. The only way we're going to keep our rights is to actively work to defend them, especially with facists like Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfield at the helm.

I am disgusted by the ability of the government to hold people uncharged.

Scratch that. I am DISGUSTED by the CLAIM that they can hold people uncharged. They may be doing it but I totally question their right to do this.

The sad thing is that many of the people they are holding LIKELY could be charged, but there is such a burden of proof now (There wasn't enough evidence to convict O.J.?!?!) that I believe prosecutors are using this as a hold'em until we can charge them card. It's a tough call if they really are dangerous, but I don't think it is right to hold them if you aren't charging them.

HOWEVER, I have serious doubts that NO ONE has questioned Mr. Hawash??? What sense does that make?

MAYBE, MAYBE this is true. Or maybe it is deeper than that.

Maybe the government has questioned him on things he doesn't want to tell his workers and family about. And the government is stuck because they can't jump out and tell the nation while at the same time claiming they have right to hold him secretly (their fault).

If Mr. Hawash is innocent, I will be the first to say this is miserable and disgusting treatment.

But suppose he is guilty of something...It is wrong to hold him without charging him. Period.

[Note, this is more of a general rant rather than specifically about Mike Hawash but my point still stands.]

It's disgusting how America and Great Britain can be allowed to go against so many international conventions and strip people of any rights.

There are specific conventions on how to treat suspected criminals, or terrorists, which should be adhered to. Rather than follow conventions, America decided to put people suspected of terrorism in a deliberate state of limbo where they can do anything they want.

These people are not given any legal representation, they do not even need to be accused of any crime (and given than some were released without charge it's probably fair to say not all are guilty of any crime at all), there are no standards for their conditions, they do not need to be treated humanely, they do not need to be allowed visitation from independent organisations (such as Amnesty, Red Cross, etc) and they do not have to be put to trial. They can be held in this state of limbo for as long as they administration want them to be.

For a country (or countries if you include Great Britain - but they contravene human rights to a far lesser extent, and not as written above) that prides itself on its freedom of speech and human rights, it's disgusting that they treat anyone in this way. And it's even more disgusting that they are one of the premier countries to point out international breaches by other countries - particularly when it favours the situation they're in.

My view on the problem with American society is that although everyone pretends to be friendly and respectful of each other and their views, it's very much each person for themself. People don't think that they'll ever be in a situation when they'll need help, so don't support actions to benefit those who do.

For example, the death penalty. It's all very well saying "Fry them!" or whatever, but when you're accused and found guilty of a crime you didn't commit, or you get found guilty because you're black, poor and can't afford proper legal representation, it's a whole new story. Abortions: it's all well and good to say no to abortions but when it's your daughter, your sister or you who's pregnant and shouldn'tt to give birth for whatever reason, it's different. When your family member/friend is dying from Parkinson's or some other degenerate disease, you'll be wishing the government would allow stem cell research, or at least sooner. I've forgotten who it was but when one president got some degenerative disease which could be potentially eradicated with enough research into stem cells (which don't use any fertilised eggs), although he had been staunchly against the research his whole life, the first thing the first lady did was speak directly to President Bush to try get it allowed.

The shear selfishness - while not always apparent/transparent - of many American's is shocking. What if you were accused of some terrorist charge which you didn't commit? Put away on an island with no contact to anyone - even a lawyer, for a simple misunderstanding.

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."

I noticed in that entire article that there was not one comment from he or his wife or anyone closer than a coworker (who may or may not be a good friend).

A few things though. He is being held in solitairy confinement as a "material witness". Perhaps they want him to testify against the charity. If he were to claim that he had no idea they were sending money to terrorists then it could make a great case for fraud against the charity.

It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy. Note that he's not in general population, perhaps that is why. Normally people don't START in solitairy confinement.

In any case, I don't know. The article is rather sensationalistic. There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of. I certainly hope that he makes it through this ordeal. If it becomes clear that he is in fact being held entirely against his will for doing nothing wrong, then I will champion his cause. Until then I refuse to take a position either way.

And yes, what the government did to Mitnick was horribly, horribly wrong. But don't start acting like we don't have the power to change any of this. We do. Tell your friends and neighbors Kevin's story. Tell them how he did not intend to cause any damage and that any damage he did cause was indirect. Tell them how he was held without being charged for years. Tell them how he was held without a trial for years after that. But by god do NOT start championing the cause of someone that nobody really knows anything about (hell, for all we know he actually COULD be a terrorist) because then it really weakens your argument against the wrongs that were committed against Mr. Mitnick.

Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Ashcroft has done more damage to our country and our constituion than the terrorists could ever have dreamed of doing. The terrorists have won, and the current administration has done nothing but help them. I believe a regime change is needed indeed--vote against the regime in 2004.

I grew up in Northern Ireland. In 1971 the UK governement decided that it could defeat terrorist by using internment [ulst.ac.uk]. What happened was that the goverment identified who they thought would be likely IRA terrorists. There was no actual evidence involved, just people that the government didn't like. Snatch squads were sent out and people were taken and imprisoned without trial.

This is no different to what the US goverment is doing now.

The one thing that came out of internment in Northern Ireland was that it actually promoted support for the very terrorist organisation it was designed to crush.

I mean, geez, people, this has been going on for literally years now (two, at the least). Why do we suddenly get riled up when it's an Intel emplyee? If you haven't figured out that it could happen to _you_, then I'm sad for you.

Honestly, this isn't a troll. This simply should have dawned on people a year or two ago.

The damn thing about it is that it is illegal based on the fifth amendment. Unfortunately there are some judges out there incapable of comprehending plain english. "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

I haven't had the time or excuse to investigate how judges became confused on this issue but the material witness statute plainly and obviously violates the fifth amendment and must be overturned.

Judges also seem to be blind when it comes to the "property" clause above as they allow property to be seized (by the DEA, IRS, etc) without due process and the owner must sue to have any hope of getting their property back.

Of course the lawmakers are also to blame. They did swear to protect and uphold the constitution, yet they insist on trying to break it whenever they don't find it convenient.

If it's illegal based upon the fifth amendment, it's completely, mind-bogglingly illegal based upon the sixth:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Up until the Patriot Act, saying that would have first involved something called the burden of proof.

What good is America if what makes America free is destroyed in the process of making America safe?

By committing these sorts of actions, we show disrespect towards the lives of all those who have died to keep this country free. Are we not as well willing to sacrifice out lives for this great nation? Or are we such pitiful weaklings that the nary is the threat of 'terrorist actions' waved against us that we all surrender our rights, our liberties, and our very heritage, for a sleep free of worries of death?

He made a very large donation to a charity that has known connections to terrorist groups.

You know, we could stamp out a lot of terrorism in Britain and Ireland by bombing the shit out of Boston, Chicago, and New York, oh yes. And arresting the hundreds of thousands of Irish-Americans that fund terrorist organizations.

As a native Irish-born person, what really bugs me about this current "War on Terror" is that it's really a "War on Wog Terror". Various Irish-American charities [google.com]s have funded a sustained, vicious, crippling terror campaign within Ireland and Britain for decades, yet even in the current paranoid climate the Irish-American lobby is so large that the Bush Gang didn't proscribe these "charities" even as it curtailed the activities of many Muslim charities (some legitimate, some terrorist funding fronts).

If there were as many Arab-Americans and there are "Irish"-Americans, bet your arse this War On Terror would be targeted differently.

This was printed in a UK paper a year or so ago, but seems to be no longer available online.

To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so -- or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt -- we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers.
It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs -- preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.
Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets.
Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.
In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey

He is being held as a material witness. He has not been charged with a crime. He has not been named a suspect of a crime. Still he is being held under a law that allow him to be kept with close to no contact with the outside world for an indefinite amount of time without due process.

THAT is the issue, not whether or not he is a "good guy". Even if he turns out to be a criminal, he is still treated in a way that violates fundamental principles of justice, and that is quite reminiscent of tactics used by dictators to silence anyone they don't like.

Why kill and be brutal when holding someone in an unknown location without any requirement for a court hearing is just as effective?

THAT is the issue - that the US government is now step by step emulating more and more of the tactics of the very people they claim they are trying to protect Americans and the world against.

<rant-mode>

And of course it's always nice to try to pretend it's the same people who complain about two seemingly mutually exclusive things. But I think you'll find that quite a lot of the people who are now crying out about human rights abuses in the US weren't that surprised when 9/11 happened. My first reaction was "that's what you get for pissing off an entire people".

Making enemies all over the world is just begging for thousands of people to start thinking about ways to hit back. Becoming more oppressive and more agressive (as with the Iraq war) may stop a few threats now, but it also make thousands more angry enough and desperate enough to start thinking about how it would be to copy the 9/11 terrorists.

I keep hearing "appeasement never work with terrorists", but what you need to realise is that what is terrorism to you and me is considered freedom fighting by the people doing it. Every strike against them validate their beliefs. Every death makes it easier for them to recruit.

You can splinter a terorist group, but unless you remove the root cause, there will only be more. Until the US government sees that the way they keep angering hundreds of millions of people is what is feeding the terrorist threat in the first place, and start taking a gentler tone - not to the terrorists, but to the groups of people from which the terrorist recruit, you will always have the terror threat hanging over you. Appeasement not towards the terrorists, but towards the countries and peoples that are weary, suspicious and downright angry at the US government because of decades of US foreign policy.

A more even handed approach towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for instance, would do a great deal to make it harder for fundamentalist muslim terrorist groups to recruit. Similarly, a more patient approach against Iraq would have done the same.

Instead the present US government seems to keep doing everything it can to whirl up more hatred.

I say we lock you up. Just have, what is essentially the 'secret police' come and hold you indefinitely. Oh, what's that? That law is meant for those 'other' guys?

If we want to stop terrorism we need to get it at the source. When we get attacked instead of concluding that it must be because they are jealous of our suburbs, or that they 'hate our freedom', or the classic claim that they are just inertly "evil", and therefore randomly decided to fly planes into our buildings; we need to look the real reasons why such a thing took place. And then do our best to correct the mistakes made, or at the very least don't repeat them again.

Let me give you a little timeline of events:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran - U.S. installs Shah as dictator.1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Aroenz of Guatemala - 200,000 civilians killed in the process (the equivalent of 50 September 11th attacks)1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia. (the equivalent of 1,000 September 11th attacks)1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile - Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated - Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed - 5,000 Chileans murdered under his rule1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador - 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed by the U.S. backed military rulers (the equivalent of 17 September 11th attacks)1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets - CIA gives them $3 billion1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" - 30,000 Nicaraguans are killed by the U.S. backed contras (the equivalent of 7 September 11th attacks)1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians (he later uses these weapons to kill his own people, sheesh, If you can't trust an "evil," war criminal, homicidal, dictator, who can you trust?)1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington - U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega - 3,000 Panamin civilians die in the process1990: Iraq invades Kuwait using weapons provided by the United States.1991: U.S. enters Iraq - Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban ruled Afghanistan $450 million in 'aid'September 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses expert CIA training to kill 3,000 Americans.

Yeah, it was because they 'hate our freedoms' *sigh*

What we need to do is stop this imperialistic shit, not start turning on our own people with 1984 style acts (e.g. the 'Patriot' Act). If the terrorists goal was to take away our freedom they supposedly hate so much, then, sadly enough, they have already won on many fronts.